O’Toole has several disconnects in his argument. He surmises that management of buses will not change when a rail is added to the transit mix. This of course could happen in a less than brilliant management system, but if rail is added, it makes sense to look at bus route and tweak them to serve the new configuration. The big claim of bus-over-rail advocates is that rubber tire service is more flexible; O’Toole would like to ignore this claim when it is inconvenient to his argument.

Rail is not locked-in technology. The rails are, yes in the ground, but the engines will continue to improve, or electricity might as well be added, constantly improving rail efficiency. O’Toole assumes cars efficiencies will improve and assumes rail efficiency will not improve.

His favorite org, Center for Clean Air Policy, is a market-based advocacy group, and by that commitment to that mission, will argue against public investment, as does O’Toole’s Cato which has faith in market solutions, and is well funded by industries that stand to gain from the status quo.

Milwaukee River empties into Lake Michigan

Wisconsin wind farm, east of Waupun

Twitter

What water, wetland protection is all about

"A little fill here and there may seem to be nothing to become excited about. But one fill, though comparatively inconsequential, may lead to another, and another, and before long a great body may be eaten away until it may no longer exist. Our navigable waters are a precious natural heritage, once gone, they disappear forever," wrote the Wisconsin Supreme Court in its 1960 opinion resolving Hixon v. PSC and buttressing The Public Trust Doctrine, Article IX of the Wisconsin State Constitution.